The future is on whitelisting, which assumes the removal of anoynymity for websites and advertisers, and certificates for executables. Freedom fighters will whine and moan, but that's what will happen.

Someone really needs to cast the first lawsuit, and see how those "disclaimers" and "terms of use" hold up.

"Reliable ad agency? Yeah, I gotta agree, that's kinda funny." If you can just sit back and be a middleman collecting his sweet cut (while pretending to care about user's security), why bother caring about who your advertisers are and expend effort to make sure they are non anonymous? After all, you have the disclaimer. Thank (insert name of deity here), users have adblock.

"Host your own ads" is something only big sites can implement obviously. An ad agency is reliable if all the advertisers are non-anonymous, and hence responsible for the content they push through the ad agency. And don't tell me "it's not possible", there is this thing called HTTPS. Instead, as of now, anyone with a computer and internet connection can be an "advertizer". No eponymity or responsibilities, yay! This was good enough for the first years of the internet. "Freedom", easy, cheap blah blah, now it's not good enough, because there is lots of money to be made for malvertizing, and ad agencies can't keep up with preventing and blacklisting anonymous mal-ads. Unreliable ad agencies that don't care about my security will simply get Ad Blocked and lose my ad impressions (I don't care). Mutual non-caring.

Ahh... The joys of having anonymous advertisers, even on well-known sites: Not only some of the ads are of questionable legality, but some of them may actually hurt you. THIS is why AdBlock Edge is a security policy, not an adblocking policy. Don't give me the "freeloader" talk. Either host your own ads and be responsible for them, or partner with reliable ad agencies (and maybe I will unblock them).

And you can get it from the oldversion site.

It's called lock-in (Play Apps, Games, Movies, Music and Hangouts messages). Being on the other side is a bitch, right Microsoft?

The truth is that when digital data are modulated with some "dense" QAM scheme, then the amount of noise the cable introduces IS important. The 1s and 0s will get distorted if noise is too high. BUT, the other truth is that, all you have to do is buy a cable that is compliant conductivity-wise. All those fancy Monster cables are an ordinary cable, just upmakerd. And you should NEVER exceed the distances recommended by the standard. You should not build a 100m link even if it's consisted of monster cables. Better save the money for repeaters.

I can tell you the government is not going to give "unlimited" electricity for free. There is going to be some Kwh limit defined as "more than enough to power a household". Because, otherwise everyone will allow the neighbouring MiniMarket to connect their fridges to the appartment's outlets, for a small amount of money paid to the appartment owner. Also, the new PM also promised free food (aka food stamps) for the poor people, but this doesn't mean they will be able to park a truck outside and start loading as much food they want.

Microsoft tried to implement a system where sites and advertisers are NOT anonymous and hence responsible for their content, as a subset of the web, the world went crazy and MS abandoned the idea. IMO users should be anonymous, but sites and advertisers should not be. Also, the site doesn't mention you should have 16.0.0.296 to be safe, the linked article does.

What it means "investigating"? An exploit kit exist, they can download it and see how it works and have people working on it round the clock. The fact there is no commitment on when the bug is going to be fixed is absurd.

My password is 'incorrect". So if I ever forget it, the computer will helpfully remind me that "password is incorrect"

This thing is ridiculous. A website subcontracts ads to an ad-service, and the ad-service allows ads from anoynymous people to be shown in the website. If the ad is a virus, only the anonymous guy is legally responsible, but he is anonymous so you can't get to him. I absolutely loathe the fact there is no "guaranteed eponymous" area of the internet, and a switch to block all sites that are behind anynoymous registrars or serve ads by anonymous ad peddlers. As long as we have anoynymous websites, anonymous advertizers and anonymous everything, creating a web inside the web which no site or ad peddler is anoynymous and hence is responsible for his actions is the only way clueless people can surf.

Google caved in and released Nexuses with 32GB storage. And I haven't met a single Android fanboy downplaying the importance of local storage.

Anyone else thought of the "Software is sh!t" scene from IronMan 2 (it's said by a Russian-speaking character).